[News] Ferland assigned to Adirondack. Colborne activated off IR

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Jesus Christ.

So close to a quad too.

[Phil Russell]

Welcome back to the lineup Colborne, see you soon Ferland. Young guys moving in and out of the lineup during development stage is normal. That we have so many young guys capable of moving in and out, that we miss them when they leave, is a great problem to have. Who would have thought that we would have this many rookies playing this well? I know the GM didn't predict it as he would not have signed as many Seto's and Bollig's had he known but who could have predicted this? Seriously. Just enjoy this ride everyone. So far, the GM and coach have been managing players in and out of the lineup brilliantly and the future is bright.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by FBI

Is anyone else getting sick of the nyquist / Detroit references for players "seasoning" in the minors?

Why? It's how we should be emulating our development strategy and it works.

[hummdeedoo]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Right now I wouldn't mind seeing Byron sat for a game. He's been pretty ineffective for a stretch now.

All right that's it - there will be no more bashing of my guy - Paul Byron - I know he's looked a little less energetic out there and hasn't registered a point in 8 games - Ok that backhand pass was a little off target. But that's it. He's off limits.

Ok so back to the Bollig fella...

[FBI]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Why? It's how we should be emulating our development strategy and it works.

Because it's the only example people ever use, it's old and tiresome, and I hate the wings and their magical wondrous development program. When we talk about seasoning players that it worked for, for the love of god please use a new example. /rant

[saillias]

Originally Posted by FBI

Is anyone else getting sick of the nyquist / Detroit references for players "seasoning" in the minors?

Yes. Especially the black & white argument that you have to do it like that or you're the Oilers.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by saillias

Yes. Especially the black & white argument that you have to do it like that or you're the Oilers.

This x eleventy million

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

This x eleventy million

More like "this x 8 years"

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by FBI

Is anyone else getting sick of the nyquist / Detroit references for players "seasoning" in the minors?

Yes especially when people make blanket statements saying players can't play too long in the AHL - it's like saying you can't spend too long in grade 11 math class. Every individual has a different development curve and needs - once they are good enough to start learning at the NHL level, they are going to progress much faster than in the AHL by playing and practicing against the best in the world. Some guys need multiple AHL seasons and others are ready sooner, you can't apply one size fits all development strategy.

Monahan for instance is a much better player today for the last season and a half in the NHL then he would be if he played that time in the AHL. Detroit has a history of drafting skilled europeans and late bloomers but even they bring a guy like Dekeyser straight into their team when the AHL won't benefit him,

No problem with Ferland going down though, he needs more ice time as his role was limited here and I really like Colborne coming back as I think he is an important part of the team moving forward. I would like to see one of the 30+ forwards go for a pick or prospect soon though as I think room needs to be made for one more young guy when Backlund comes back.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FBI

Because it's the only example people ever use, it's old and tiresome, and I hate the wings and their magical wondrous development program. When we talk about seasoning players that it worked for, for the love of god please use a new example. /rant

We don't even have to look at the examples of other teams. Flames management have said they don't believe you can overseason players in the minors. Fans can be as impatient as they want, but it's pretty clear management is going to take the long view and most of the guys we're excited about are going to spend a lot of time in the AHL.

[ricardodw]

Raymond is going to be under a lot of scrutiny.

He signed here as the 3rd highest paid forward and actually #2 as Jones was taken to dump Tanguay's salary.

He signed here to replace Cammalleri... who actually got replaced by Gaudreau.


In his 11 games he has only scored in 3 games. 6 out of his 7 points have come in 2 games that the Flames won by 3 goals.

If Raymond is not scoring he is not contributing anything else.

Hartley has been giving him top 6 ice time (more than Gaudreau) to get him going..... I would have to think that he had better start scoring on a semi-regular basis to maintain his place in the pecking order.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Yes especially when people make blanket statements saying players can't play too long in the AHL - it's like saying you can't spend too long in grade 11 math class. Every individual has a different development curve and needs - once they are good enough to start learning at the NHL level, they are going to progress much faster than in the AHL by playing and practicing against the best in the world. Some guys need multiple AHL seasons and others are ready sooner, you can't apply one size fits all development strategy.
,

Are you implying that we're applying a one size fits all development strategy? In the last two seasons, we had an 18 year old center and a 21 year old 5'6" winger make the team with no professional experience. In the meantime, we're seasoning a first round, 13th-overall pick who is 21 in the minors and giving him NHL games as merited. A 24 year old, undrafted FA made the team after getting an injury callup and is getting regular minutes this year. How are we applying a one-size-fits-all scheme here?

If you're good enough, you play.

Originally Posted by Matty81

Monahan for instance is a much better player today for the last season and a half in the NHL then he would be if he played that time in the AHL. Detroit has a history of drafting skilled europeans and late bloomers but even they bring a guy like Dekeyser straight into their team when the AHL won't benefit him,

Really? How do you know that exactly?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Raymond is going to be under a lot of scrutiny.

He signed here as the 3rd highest paid forward and actually #2 as Jones was taken to dump Tanguay's salary.

He signed here to replace Cammalleri... who actually got replaced by Gaudreau.


In his 11 games he has only scored in 3 games. 6 out of his 7 points have come in 2 games that the Flames won by 3 goals.

If Raymond is not scoring he is not contributing anything else.

Hartley has been giving him top 6 ice time (more than Gaudreau) to get him going..... I would have to think that he had better start scoring on a semi-regular basis to maintain his place in the pecking order.

Please stop trying to use useless stats to prove a point. With such a small sample size your analysis is just a joke. Lets have Raymond play more than 1 game back from injury before assuming his production will dramatically drop.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just wonder what the Flames do if they have two guys they like in NY (Ferland and Granlund eventually)

are still in a playoff spot

and come up to the trade deadline.

Do they still look at dealing Glencross and then call a guy up?
Stay the course because of the playoff spot?
Add to the roster with picks for vets to boost the team's chances?

So interesting.

It's obvious that we need to trade a forward for defense but the right deal must not have come up yet.

[Lucky23]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Right now I wouldn't mind seeing Byron sat for a game. He's been pretty ineffective for a stretch now.

I had a good laugh when I saw that article about Byron being the most consistent flame.

[Itse]

It's been discussed a few times by different GM's, defensemen are hard to get right now. I'll honestly be a little surprised if we get one. Maybe a prospect-for-prospect trade could be found. And none of that is meant as a slight against Treliving, Just how the market is. Of course depth guys, especially aging ones, can always be had, but it's not what we need.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by saillias

Yes. Especially the black & white argument that you have to do it like that or you're the Oilers.

I have trouble with the one-size-fits-all model of player development. Some players develop best with lots of time in the minors; some develop best in the bigs.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Most times for most teams, players returning from injury is a good thing. But in a rebuild, when the cupboards are somewhat stocked with options, these vets can actually hurt with assessing your prospects.

What we should be projecting is who will be part of this team in 2016/17 and onward. These are the years where I expect/hope that this team is a legit cup contender.

I agree with Baertch and Fer hitting the farm, but if the next cut is Granlund... That's a bad move - he is not overwhelmed here and is growing.

In other words, Backs is next one back so that was just another way of saying you hate him. Let it go..

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Are you implying that we're applying a one size fits all development strategy? In the last two seasons, we had an 18 year old center and a 21 year old 5'6" winger make the team with no professional experience. In the meantime, we're seasoning a first round, 13th-overall pick who is 21 in the minors and giving him NHL games as merited. A 24 year old, undrafted FA made the team after getting an injury callup and is getting regular minutes this year. How are we applying a one-size-fits-all scheme here?

If you're good enough, you play.

Really? How do you know that exactly?

I didn't say or intend to imply that - the Flames have proven that they don't believe that everybody needs to over season in the AHL. Just seems to be really popular to cite Detroit and claim that you can't keep players at one level for too long which I just think is total bull. Players have a finite amount of development time and there's only so much you can learn and develop at an inferior level against poorer competition - some players need longer to learn it is all. What do studies say you do with a student to ensure they keep learning at the quickest and more efficient level... challenge them and place them with people at the same level. Kind of flies in the face of saying that you can put a young developing player in the AHL for 6 years and expect that they will realize their full potential.

Re: Monahan, if you honestly believe that he could be a better player than he is today after a season and a half with the 67s or Adirondack/Abby... fair enough, you're entitled to that but I really can't agree - I realize there's never going to be proof of right or wrong here... but watching him develop in leaps and bounds over the last 16 months I feel really confident that him being in the NHL has been best for his development. Watch a lot of WHL and I've never seen a kid in the CHL advance that quickly in that kind of timeframe.